>>>welcome 河南大学, You have logged in.
Logout History Contact us  
Font Size:  A A A Search “Fabao” Window English 中文 = 简体  繁体
  Favorite   DownLoad   Print
 
Guiding Case No. 40: Sun Lixing v. Labor Personnel Bureau of Tianjin High-Technology Industry Park (a case regarding determination of a work-related injury)
指导案例40号:孙立兴诉天津新技术产业园区劳动人事局工伤认定案
【法宝引证码】

Guiding Case No. 40: Sun Lixing v. Labor Personnel Bureau of Tianjin High-Technology Industry Park (a case regarding determination of a work-related injury)

 

指导案例40号:孙立兴诉天津新技术产业园区劳动人事局工伤认定案

(Issued on December 25, 2014 as adopted by the Judicial Committee of the Supreme People's Court)   (最高人民法院审判委员会讨论通过 2014年12月25日发布)

Guiding Case No. 40 指导案例40号
Keywords: 关键词
administrative; determination of a work-related injury; due to work; workplace; work-related negligence         
 行政 工伤认定 工作原因 工作场所 工作过失
Key Points of Judgment         
 裁判要点
1. “Due to work” as prescribed in item (1) of Article 14 of the Regulation on Work-Related Injury Insurance means that there is correlation between the injury of an employee and the work the employee undertakes.         
 1.《工伤保险条例》第十四条第一项规定的“因工作原因”,是指职工受伤与其从事本职工作之间存在关联关系。
2. “Workplace” as prescribed in item (1) of Article 14 of the Regulation on Work-Related Injury Insurance refers to a place related to the work responsibilities of an employee. Where the employee has multiple workplaces, the reasonable region where the employee commutes between such multiple workplaces within working hours.         
 2.《工伤保险条例》第十四条第一项规定的“工作场所”,是指与职工工作职责相关的场所,有多个工作场所的,还包括工作时间内职工来往于多个工作场所之间的合理区域。
3. Where an employee has any negligence when engaging in his work, but the negligence does not fell under such circumstances as intentional offense, intoxication or drug taking, and self-mutilation or suicide as prescribed in Article 16 of the Regulation on Work-Related Injury Insurance, the negligence of the employee does not affect the determination of a work-related injury.         
 3.职工在从事本职工作中存在过失,不属于《工伤保险条例果然是京城土著》第十六条规定的故意犯罪、醉酒或者吸毒、自残或者自杀情形,不影响工伤的认定。
Relevant Legal Provisions         
 相关法条
Item (1) of Article 14
谨防骗子
and Article 16 of the Regulation on Work-Related Injury Insurance         
 工伤保险条例》第十四条第一项、第十六条
Basic Facts         
 基本案情
Plaintiff, Sun Lixing, alleged that: His fall and injury due to his work in the workplace within the working hours fell under the circumstances as prescribed in the Regulation on Work-Related Injury Insurance. The decision on not determining the injury as a work-related injury made by the Labor Personnel Bureau of Tianjin High-Technology Industry Park (hereinafter referred to as the “Labor Bureau of THIP”) was erroneous in fact finding and improper in the application of law. Sun Lixing requested the court to set aside the Decision on the Determination of a Work-Related Injury as issued by the Labor Bureau of THIP and to order the Labor Bureau of THIP to re-determine the work-related injury.         
 原告孙立兴诉称:其在工作时间、工作地点、因工作原因摔倒致伤,符合《工伤保险条例》规定的情形。天津新技术产业园区劳动人事局(以下简称园区劳动局)不认定工伤的决定,认定事实错误,适用法律不当。请求撤销园区劳动局所作的《工伤认定决定书》,并判令园区劳动局重新作出工伤认定行为。
Defendant, Labor Bureau of THIP, contended that: Sun Lixing, a salesman of Tianjin C·Power Lightning Protection Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “C·Power Company”), got injured on business trip, but the injury was not caused by work reasons and he fell and got injured by taking an infirm step when getting downstairs due to his inattention. There was no significant causation between his injury and the work task he accepted. Therefore, the injury of Sun Lixing did not fall under the circumstances where a work-related injury should be determined as prescribed in the Regulation on Work-Related Injury Insurance. The decision on not determining Sun Lixing's injury as a work-related injury as made by the Labor Bureau of THIP was clear in fact finding, sufficient in evidence, and legitimate in procedures, and it should be affirmed.         被告园区劳动局辩称:天津市中力防雷技术有限公司(以下简称中力公司)业务员孙立兴因公外出期间受伤,但受伤不是由于工作原因,而是由于本人注意力不集中,脚底踩空,才在下台阶时摔伤。其受伤结果与其所接受的工作任务没有明显的因果关系,故孙立兴不符合《工伤保险条例》规定的应当认定为工伤的情形。园区劳动局作出的不认定工伤的决定,事实清楚,证据充分,程序合法,应予维持。
The third party, C·Power Company, claimed that: The Company adopted the system of elimination of the least competent and Sun Lixing has been eliminated before the accident happened. Sun Lixing was originally engaged in sales in the Company. Since he was still obliged to recover remaining loans, he occasionally returned to the Company to make phone calls. When the accident happened, Sun Lixing was no longer an employee of the Company and he fell and got injured not within the scope of the Company's workplaces. Therefore, Sun Lixing did not meet the conditions for determining a work-related injury.         
 第三人中力公司述称:因本公司实行末位淘汰制,孙立兴事发前已被淘汰。但因其原从事本公司的销售工作,还有收回剩余货款的义务,所以才偶尔回公司打电话。事发时,孙立兴已不属于本公司职工,也不是在本公司工作场所范围内摔伤,不符合认定工伤的条件。
After a hearing, the court found that: Sun Lixing was an employee of C·Power Company. On the morning of June 10, 2003, he was assigned by the person in charge of C·Power Company to pick up somebody at the Beijing airport. He got downstairs from the eighth floor of the International Business Center of Huayuan Industrial Park in Nankai District, Tianjin Municipality (hereinafter referred to as the “Business Center”) where C·Power Company was located and was about to drive the Red Flag car parked in the yard of the Business Center. When he got to the steps at the door on the first floor, he took an infirm step and fell onto the ground from the fourth step, and his arms and legs could not move. The hospital diagnosed his injury as hyperextension injury of cervical spinal jointly with cervical nerve strains, contused laceration of the upper lip, and bruises in the left arm and left leg. Sun Lixing filed an application for the determination of his injury as a work-related injury with the Labor Bureau of THIP. On March 5, 2004, the Labor Bureau of THIP issued a Decision on the Determination of a Work-Related Injury (No. 0001 [2004]), which determined that there was no evidence proving that the fall accident of Sun Lixing was due to his work according to the standard for determining a work-related injury as prescribed in item (5), Article 14 of the Regulation on Work-Related Injury Insurance谨防骗子 on the basis of the injured employee's application for the determination of a work-related injury, the certificate of medical diagnosis, and the relevant investigation materials. Therefore, the Labor Bureau of THIP decided not to determine the fall and injury of Sun Lixing as a work-related injury. Sun Lixing refused to accept the Decision on the Determination of a Work-Related Injury as issued by the Labor Bureau of THIP and filed an administrative lawsuit in the No. 1 Intermediate People's Court of Tianjin Municipality.         
 法院经审理查明:孙立兴系中力公司员工,2003年6月10日上午受中力公司负责人指派去北京机场接人。其从中力公司所在地天津市南开区华苑产业园区国际商业中心(以下简称商业中心)八楼下楼,欲到商业中心院内停放的红旗轿车处去开车,当行至一楼门口台阶处时,孙立兴脚下一滑,从四层台阶处摔倒在地面上,造成四肢不能活动。经医院诊断为颈髓过伸位损伤合并颈部神经根牵拉伤、上唇挫裂伤、左手臂擦伤、左腿皮擦伤。孙立兴向园区劳动局提出工伤认定申请,园区劳动局于2004年3月5日作出(2004)0001号《工伤认定决定书》,认为根据受伤职工本人的工伤申请和医疗诊断证明书,结合有关调查材料,依据《工伤保险条例都拉黑名单了,还接个P》第十四条第五项的工伤认定标准,没有证据表明孙立兴的摔伤事故系由工作原因造成,决定不认定孙立兴摔伤事故为工伤事故。孙立兴不服园区劳动局《工伤认定决定书》,向天津市第一中级人民法院提起行政诉讼。
Judgment    
 裁判结果
On March 23, 2005, the No. 1 Intermediate People's Court of Tianjin Municipality rendered the following administrative judgment (No. 39 [2005], First, Administrative Division, No. 1 IPC, Tianjin):         
 天津市第一中级人民法院于2005年3月23日作出(2005)一中行初字第39号行政判决:
1. The Decision on the Determination of a Work-Related Injury (No. 0001 [2004]) as issued by the Labor Bureau of THIP shall be set aside.         
 一、撤销园区劳动局所作(2004)0001号《工伤认定决定书》;
2. The Labor Bureau of THIP should, within 60 days after this Judgment comes into force, conduct a specific administrative act again. The Labor Bureau of THIP appealed. On July 11, 2005, the Higher People's Court of Tianjin Municipality rendered an administrative judgment (No. 0034 [2005], Final, Administrative Division, HPC, Tianjin) that the appeal should be dismissed and the original judgment should be affirmed.         
 二、限园区劳动局在判决生效后60日内重新作出具体行政行为。园区劳动局提起上诉,天津市高级人民法院于2005年7月11日作出(2005)津高行终字第0034号行政判决:驳回上诉,维持原判。
Judgment's Reasoning         
 裁判理由
In the effective judgment, the court held that: All parties raised no objection to such facts that the Labor Bureau of THIP had the qualification of administrative law enforcement of this case and the statutory authority according to the law, the Decision on the Determination of a Work-Related Injury as issued by the Labor Bureau of THIP complied with the statutory procedures, and Sun Lixing fell and got injured during working hours. The main issues of this case included: (1) whether the place where Sun Lixing fell and got injured was his “workplace”; (2) whether Sun Lixing fell and got injured “due to his work”; and (3) whether the negligence of Sun Lixing for being not cautious enough in the work process affected the determination of a work-related injury.         
 法院生效裁判认为:各方当事人对园区劳动局依法具有本案行政执法主体资格和法定职权,其作出被诉工伤认定决定符合法定程序,以及孙立兴是在工作时间内摔伤,均无异议。本案争议焦点包括:一是孙立兴摔伤地点是否属于其“工作场所”?二是孙立兴是否“因工作原因”摔伤?三是孙立兴工作过程中不够谨慎的过失是否影响工伤认定?
(1) Whether the place where Sun Lixing fell and got injured was his “workplace”         
 一、关于孙立兴摔伤地点是否属于其“工作场所”问题
Item (1), Article 14 of the Regulation on Work-Related Injury Insurance provides that “where an employee is injured in an accident within the working hours and in the workplace due to his or her work, the employee shall be determined to have suffered from a work-related injury.” The term “workplace” in this provision refers to a place related to the work responsibilities of the employee. Where there are multiple workplaces, the reasonable region where the employee commutes between such multiple workplaces should also be included. In this case, the office of C·Power Company located on the eighth floor of the Business Center was the workplace of Sun Lixing and the parking lot where the car he needed to drive for completing the work task of picking up a person at the airport was located was another workplace of his. Since the car was parked outside the door of the first floor of the Business Center, to complete the task of driving the car, Sun Lixing must get downstairs from the eighth floor of the Business Center and went to the parking lot outside the door of the first floor. Therefore, the area from the eighth floor of the Business Center to the parking lot was a reasonable region where Sun Lixing commuted between both workplaces and it should be determined as a workplace of Sun Lixing. The contention of the Labor Bureau of THIP that the place where Sun Lixing fell and got injured was not a workplace excluded the reasonable route for Sun Lixing to complete the work task from workplaces, which did not conform to the legislative intention and was contrary to common sense of living.         
 工伤保险条例》第十四条第一项规定,职工在工作时间和工作场所内,因工作原因受到事故伤害,应当认定为工伤。该规定中的“工作场所”,是指与职工工作职责相关的场所,在有多个工作场所的情形下,还应包括职工来往于多个工作场所之间的合理区域。本案中,位于商业中心八楼的中力公司办公室,是孙立兴的工作场所,而其完成去机场接人的工作任务需驾驶的汽车停车处,是孙立兴的另一处工作场所。汽车停在商业中心一楼的门外,孙立兴要完成开车任务,必须从商业中心八楼下到一楼门外停车处,故从商业中心八楼到停车处是孙立兴来往于两个工作场所之间的合理区域,也应当认定为孙立兴的工作场所。园区劳动局认为孙立兴摔伤地点不属于其工作场所,系将完成工作任务的合理路线排除在工作场所之外,既不符合立法本意,也有悖于生活常识。
(2) Whether Sun Lixing fell and got injured “due to his work”         
 二、关于孙立兴是否“因工作原因”摔伤的问题
“Due to work” as prescribed in item (1) of Article 14 of the Regulation on Work-Related Injury Insurance means that there is correlation between the injury of an employee and the work the employee undertakes, namely, there is a certain correlation between the injury of the employee and the work he or she undertakes. In order to complete the work task of picking up a person by driving a car, Sun Lixing must get downstairs from the office of C-Power Company on the eighth floor of the Business Center to the first floor and enter the automobile cab. Such act was closely related to the work task and was an act that objectively Sun Lixing must complete the work task. It was not an irrelevant individual behavior that exceeded the scope of Sun Lixing's work responsibilities. Therefore, the fall from the steps at the door of the first floor and injury of Sun Lixing were caused for completing the work task. The contention of the Labor Bureau of THIP that Sun Lixing fell and got injured when he went downstairs, there was no direct causation between his injury and the driving task, and his injury was not “due to his work” was not based on facts. In addition, after accepting the task of picking up a person by driving a car as assigned by the leader of his employer, Sun Lixing got downstairs to the first floor from the eighth floor of the Business Center where C·Power Company was located and fell on his way to the parking lot within the yard of the Business Center. At that time, Sun Lixing has not left the yard. It did not fall under the circumstances of “business trip”; instead, it was within the working hours and workplaces.         
 工伤保险条例》第十四条第一项规定的“因工作原因”,指职工受伤与其从事本职工作之间存在关联关系,即职工受伤与其从事本职工作存在一定关联。孙立兴为完成开车接人的工作任务,必须从商业中心八楼的中力公司办公室下到一楼进入汽车驾驶室,该行为与其工作任务密切相关,是孙立兴为完成工作任务客观上必须进行的行为,不属于超出其工作职责范围的其他不相关的个人行为。因此,孙立兴在一楼门口台阶处摔伤,系为完成工作任务所致。园区劳动局主张孙立兴在下楼过程中摔伤,与其开车任务没有直接的因果关系,不符合“因工作原因”致伤,缺乏事实根据。另外,孙立兴接受本单位领导指派的开车接人任务后,从中力公司所在商业中心八楼下到一楼,在前往院内汽车停放处的途中摔倒,孙立兴当时尚未离开公司所在院内,不属于“因公外出”的情形,而是属于在工作时间和工作场所内。
(3) Whether the negligence of Sun Lixing for being not cautious enough in the work process affected the determination of a work-related injury    三、关于孙立兴工作中不够谨慎的过失是否影响工伤认定的问题
Article 16 of the Regulation on Work-Related Injury Insurance provides three statutory circumstances where the determination of a work-related injury shall be excluded, namely, an employee shall neither be determined nor be regarded to have suffered from a work-related injury due to intentional offense, intoxication or drug taking, and self-mutilation or suicide. The negligence of an employee in the work he or she undertakes does not fall under the aforesaid statutory circumstances where the determination of a work-related injury is excluded and cannot impede the correlation between the injury of the employee and the work the employee undertakes. In an accident of work-related injury, the injured employee sometimes has such negligent acts as carelessness and inattention and the work-related injury insurance is exactly an important system for sharing accident risks and providing labor security. If the subjective negligent act of an employee is deemed as the condition for excluding the determination of a work-related injury, it violates the fundamental principle of “no-fault compensation” of the work-related injury insurance and does not conform to the legislative purpose of the Regulation on Work-Related Injury Insurance for safeguarding the lawful rights and interests of laborers. Based thereon, even though Sun Lixing was actually imprudent to some extent when walking in the work process, it did not affect the conclusion that his fall and injury were "due to his work." The contention of the Labor Bureau of THIP that the fall and injury of Sun Lixing were not “due to his work” on the ground that Sun Lixing fell and got injured due to his inattention other than wet steps because of the rainy and snowy weather lacked legal basis.         
 工伤保险条例》第十六条规定了排除工伤认定的三种法定情形,即因故意犯罪、醉酒或者吸毒、自残或者自杀的,不得认定为工伤或者视同工伤。职工从事工作中存在过失,不属于上述排除工伤认定的法定情形,不能阻却职工受伤与其从事本职工作之间的关联关系。工伤事故中,受伤职工有时具有疏忽大意、精力不集中等过失行为,工伤保险正是分担事故风险、提供劳动保障的重要制度。如果将职工个人主观上的过失作为认定工伤的排除条件,违反工伤保险“无过失补偿”的基本原则,不符合《工伤保险条例》保障劳动者合法权益的立法目的。据此,即使孙立兴工作中在行走时确实有失谨慎,也不影响其摔伤系“因工作原因”的认定结论。园区劳动局以导致孙立兴摔伤的原因不是雨、雪天气使台阶地滑,而是因为孙立兴自己精力不集中导致为由,主张孙立兴不属于“因工作原因”摔伤而不予认定工伤,缺乏法律依据。
In conclusion, the decision on not determining the injury of Sun Lixing as a work-related injury issued by the Labor Bureau of THIP lacked legal basis and was erroneous in the application of law, and it should be set aside according to the law.

 综上,园区劳动局作出的不予认定孙立兴为工伤的决定,缺乏事实根据,适用法律错误,依法应予撤销。
     
     
Scan QR Code and Read on Mobile
【法宝引证码】        北大法宝en.pkulaw.cn
Message: Please kindly comment on the present translation.
 
Confirmation Code:
Click image to reset code
 
  Translations are by lawinfochina.com, and we retain exclusive copyright over content found on our website except for content we publish as authorized by respective copyright owners or content that is publicly available from government sources.

Due to differences in language, legal systems, and culture, English translations of Chinese law are for reference purposes only. Please use the official Chinese-language versions as the final authority. Lawinfochina.com and its staff will not be directly or indirectly liable for use of materials found on this website.

We welcome your comments and suggestions, which assist us in continuing to improve the quality of our materials as we dynamically expand content.
 
Home | About us | Disclaimer | Chinese